That'd all be well and good, and quite possible, if the Internet was American and only American. But Sony is an (originally) Japanese company as far as I know, and the Internet is a lovely, global...system? device? clusterfuck? Whatever you want to call it, the internet is not bound and restricted - and should never be bound or restricted - by American laws. I don't want your Constitutional rights, whatever they are. They're yours. "First Amendment Rights" do not apply to me and they never have. I may have similar rights, I'm sure I probably do, but the point is that US laws are not Internet Laws. America already has a reputation as the lauded and oft-laughed at World Police, do you really want to take that branding further by pushing it into the Internet?
Therumancer said:
Simply put I think the judge was wrong though, he dismissed it not because of any of the reasons mentioned by my other responder, or any other details. He dismissed it because he felt First Amendment Rights shouldn't apply. I disagree with that whole heartedly, the Judge's reasoning is inherantly flawed. Whether the guy wins or not, the case deserves to be heard and treated as a potential free speech violation. Should he lose under thos terms with the details reviewed by someone other than a corperate bureaucrat... then I'll agree it should be dropped.
How is Sony "not subject to First Amendment obligations?" Anything that operates in the U.S. is subject to U.S. laws. Unless he was making threats, all speech is protected speech.
Its a privately owned communication network, and as such doesn't have to transmit anything it doesn't want to. You sign a contract when you join these things, even internet forums, and they state the rules. Don't follow the rules, or annoy the owners enough, they don't have to provide the service, and so they take it away.
They aren't gagging the person, who is free to start up there own internet/forum/PSN/etc, and communicate and socialise to their heart's content.
Simply put I think the judge was wrong though, he dismissed it not because of any of the reasons mentioned by my other responder, or any other details. He dismissed it because he felt First Amendment Rights shouldn't apply. I disagree with that whole heartedly, the Judge's reasoning is inherantly flawed. Whether the guy wins or not, the case deserves to be heard and treated as a potential free speech violation. Should he lose under thos terms with the details reviewed by someone other than a corperate bureaucrat... then I'll agree it should be dropped.
This - if you don't follow the rules on a privately owned communication network after having signed the rules, then no, the first ammented doesn't apply.
Sony own a network, and as such, it has a value - people who break the rules they lay down either damage the quality of the network, or make other people angry - ego, you damage the value of their service. This isn't you chatting to friends in the same room, this is you using a network of computers and devices to transmit your voice over the internet through Sony. Sony do not have to provide that service as a right so they are free to lay the rules down how they like.
Since his PSN ban he's been playing a lot of GamePolitics [http://www.worldscollide.com/] that he's "a bit obsessed" with the character of The Joker. "I plan to wear a purple suit during my court trials," he said. "No joke!"
And he just lost any sympathy he was thinking about getting from the new judge. This guy needs to learn something, you sign your first amendment rights away with the fucking EULA.
Edit:I just thought of this, if he is truly agoraphobic how does he plan to go to court for that trial in the first place, or will his defense be seen via streaming video?
How is Sony "not subject to First Amendment obligations?" Anything that operates in the U.S. is subject to U.S. laws. Unless he was making threats, all speech is protected speech.
By that logic there shouldn't be anyone banned from here. And what about the digital contract he signed? Why does the first amendment give him the freedom to break the rules of a contract he agreed too?
Man I hope the courts fine him $180,000 for wasting thier time. And then Sony can sue him for taping his conversation with customer support (without authorization) and posting it on youtube for another $180,000.
Sony wouldn't do it, too much bad publication for such a slight chance of receiving the money. [They'd have to win the case, and then the guy would just call Bankruptcy].
Honestly, this gets to the crux of a very important matter as ridiculous as it sounds.
I have been saying for years that I feel privatly owned communication channels which are increasingly becoming a nessecity in today's world need to be policed better. Not for people misbehaving, or for content, but to protect the freedom of speech rights of people using those forums. I understand the logic of ownership rights and such, and on a small scale I can see favoring the owners. However when dealing with things like the internet with millions of users and the potential for limitless, totally free information, the situation changes entirely. I have long felt that once the purpose of a forum is set, an owner should only be able to engage in censorship/banning/etc... for being off topic, and even then it should be limited. Conversations that extent from on-topic matters to off topic ones should also be protected.
The reason for this is simple: free speech is something that was guaranteed to prevent oppression. The abillity to regulate speech is something that was intented to be put outside of the power of a goverment of duly elected representitives, and despite our self destructive tendencies, something that people would have a hard time simply voting away themselves (a lot of current politics on things like video games largely revolve around the goverment trying to find a way to take away this right).
If it's beyond the power of a duly elected representitive to censor someone, then private citizens shouldn't have the right to do so either. To begin with this wasn't a big deal, especially when dealing with BBS systems and such. But today when you can have a company put up a forum to discuss their product, and then delete anything negative (and ban those complaining about it) to present only positive information that promotes their pdocut under the pretension of free speech... well... that's a problem.
It also gives people with information services virtually godlike power to truely ruin the lives of people who depend on their services.
This guy's case strikes me as a big hokey, but let's say for example that he's serious. He's not being cut off due to lack of payment or anything, but because he said something that someone apparently didn't like. In return his communications link to millions is cut on the say so of some minor bureaucrat who can claim anything he wants and doesn't have to really justify his action. Even if he does have to talk to a supervisor, it's not like the person being banned gets a trial or anything.
Connected to this you see similar issues with blogs, facebook, and other social networking services, where some nerd with a power trip can seriously affect people's lives.
What's more by saying that First Amendment rights and similar things don't apply, it opens all kinds of doors for abuse by those controlling the services. What's more it also allows companies like Google to assist in censorship campaigns in nations like China, to say prevent them from ever seeing news that the goverment doesn't want them to (which is another issue, but connected).
In the end I feel the guy is right, PSN is such a big social network, that I think a private citizen shouldn't have the abillity to censor someone like this. First Amendment protections and such SHOULD apply. If a judge threw it out, it strikes me as being him wanting to avoid an issue that is simply too big, and too relevent for him to want to deal with.
See, I think that as things are now, electronic social networks, of ALL sorts should fall under the same limits that the goverment does as far as controlling information goes. Rather than looking to engage in moral censorship of video games and such, our informational authorities should instead be spending their time protecting our freedom of speech electronically even in face of international conflict. Basically the exact opposite of
what is happening now.
If a company like Sony wants to cut someone off, it should be in a similar vein to a utility company cutting someone off. It can be done, but appeals exist, and there are rules involved (for example you can't cut someone's heat in the middle of winter due to lack of payment and kill them indirectly).
I hate big goverment with a passion, but one thing I am somewhat left wing on (ie favoring the goverment IF it does things right, as opposed to private profiteers) is electronic communication. I think with the right attitude (acting to protect free speech as opposed to limiting it, and mission statements in the appropriate bureaus to this effect) I'd trust officials I had *SOME* say into getting into office to regulate things, rather than some slob of a low-end corperate bureaucrat when it comes to desicians about cutting people out of a million man social network or whatever. Heck, even with message boards (no offense to our mods here) the abillity to delete a message that could be seen by thousands of people potentially should not be something entrusted to some random guy who decided "hey, I wanna make a website". The website he makes effectively being bigger than him as soon as he puts it up (so to speak).
The problem is that the internet has no geographical boundries. There is no universal law on freedom of speech. The FOS laws are different in American, the UK, Germany, China, Iran, I could go on. Who's laws will you enforce?
I don't believe this guy is agoraphobic, I think he's a douche who's attention seeking, I guess daddy never bought him a pony and now he's bitter. He was the kid in class who ate crayons and was constantly seeing the school nurse with objects stuck in his nose.
I hope the courts slam him.[/quote]
bjj hero said:
Therumancer said:
Honestly, this gets to the crux of a very important matter as ridiculous as it sounds.
I have been saying for years that I feel privatly owned communication channels which are increasingly becoming a nessecity in today's world need to be policed better. Not for people misbehaving, or for content, but to protect the freedom of speech rights of people using those forums. I understand the logic of ownership rights and such, and on a small scale I can see favoring the owners. However when dealing with things like the internet with millions of users and the potential for limitless, totally free information, the situation changes entirely. I have long felt that once the purpose of a forum is set, an owner should only be able to engage in censorship/banning/etc... for being off topic, and even then it should be limited. Conversations that extent from on-topic matters to off topic ones should also be protected.
The reason for this is simple: free speech is something that was guaranteed to prevent oppression. The abillity to regulate speech is something that was intented to be put outside of the power of a goverment of duly elected representitives, and despite our self destructive tendencies, something that people would have a hard time simply voting away themselves (a lot of current politics on things like video games largely revolve around the goverment trying to find a way to take away this right).
If it's beyond the power of a duly elected representitive to censor someone, then private citizens shouldn't have the right to do so either. To begin with this wasn't a big deal, especially when dealing with BBS systems and such. But today when you can have a company put up a forum to discuss their product, and then delete anything negative (and ban those complaining about it) to present only positive information that promotes their pdocut under the pretension of free speech... well... that's a problem.
It also gives people with information services virtually godlike power to truely ruin the lives of people who depend on their services.
This guy's case strikes me as a big hokey, but let's say for example that he's serious. He's not being cut off due to lack of payment or anything, but because he said something that someone apparently didn't like. In return his communications link to millions is cut on the say so of some minor bureaucrat who can claim anything he wants and doesn't have to really justify his action. Even if he does have to talk to a supervisor, it's not like the person being banned gets a trial or anything.
Connected to this you see similar issues with blogs, facebook, and other social networking services, where some nerd with a power trip can seriously affect people's lives.
What's more by saying that First Amendment rights and similar things don't apply, it opens all kinds of doors for abuse by those controlling the services. What's more it also allows companies like Google to assist in censorship campaigns in nations like China, to say prevent them from ever seeing news that the goverment doesn't want them to (which is another issue, but connected).
In the end I feel the guy is right, PSN is such a big social network, that I think a private citizen shouldn't have the abillity to censor someone like this. First Amendment protections and such SHOULD apply. If a judge threw it out, it strikes me as being him wanting to avoid an issue that is simply too big, and too relevent for him to want to deal with.
See, I think that as things are now, electronic social networks, of ALL sorts should fall under the same limits that the goverment does as far as controlling information goes. Rather than looking to engage in moral censorship of video games and such, our informational authorities should instead be spending their time protecting our freedom of speech electronically even in face of international conflict. Basically the exact opposite of
what is happening now.
If a company like Sony wants to cut someone off, it should be in a similar vein to a utility company cutting someone off. It can be done, but appeals exist, and there are rules involved (for example you can't cut someone's heat in the middle of winter due to lack of payment and kill them indirectly).
I hate big goverment with a passion, but one thing I am somewhat left wing on (ie favoring the goverment IF it does things right, as opposed to private profiteers) is electronic communication. I think with the right attitude (acting to protect free speech as opposed to limiting it, and mission statements in the appropriate bureaus to this effect) I'd trust officials I had *SOME* say into getting into office to regulate things, rather than some slob of a low-end corperate bureaucrat when it comes to desicians about cutting people out of a million man social network or whatever. Heck, even with message boards (no offense to our mods here) the abillity to delete a message that could be seen by thousands of people potentially should not be something entrusted to some random guy who decided "hey, I wanna make a website". The website he makes effectively being bigger than him as soon as he puts it up (so to speak).
You raise several points, and whilst I understand your position, I disagree on several of those points. Firstly...
bjj hero said:
The problem is that the internet has no geographical boundries. There is no universal law on freedom of speech. The FOS laws are different in American, the UK, Germany, China, Iran, I could go on. Who's laws will you enforce?
I don't believe this guy is agoraphobic, I think he's a douche who's attention seeking, I guess daddy never bought him a pony and now he's bitter. He was the kid in class who ate crayons and was constantly seeing the school nurse with objects stuck in his nose.
Anywho, point 2 - "No private citizen should have the power to censor another"; Ok, but lets look at a simpler scenario - lets say you invite, oh, 100 friends around to your home for a party (ok, unlikely, but run with it). Lets say everyone is having fun and all, until one guy suddenly stands up and shouts something like "I FUCKING HATE NON-WHITES". Now, according to you, the home owner does not have the right to remove this individual from his home because that would be 'censoring' him, no?
I would argue that, aside from the fact that you have to sign a EULA agreeing to the rules of forums, social networking sites, and networks like xbox live, that when you are using a privately owned communications setup, the owner of that communication setup (i.e. the home owner) has the right to remove individuals from that network who break the rules.
I also have to disagree with the point that this ability will "kill free speech". If a service provider is too harash with the banhammer, the forum goers/gamers will be increasely likely to leave, until the hardcore, inward looking cliche is all that is left.
By the same token, any individual is free to setup their own blog/forum/website to express there ideas and 'speech'. The internet has many providers who don't question the content of these setups, so long as they aren't illegal (i.e. child porn, talking about child porn, talking about how to murder people, etc, etc).
You wouldn't force, say, Fox news or ABC to provide freedom of speech to everyone who wants to be on the news, would you? And you wouldn't shout 'censorship!' when these organizations decide something isn't news worth, or someone's opinion isn't worth the air time.
As for the idea that a product owners forum "pretends to have free speech", I'd have to say that its up to private individuals to determine if a source of expression is really free or not. For example, I would say Fox news is completely unfree, but there are people who believe everything they hear on fox and would call me "Leftist Scum" or "communist" if I said they should have to give a balanced view.
lolz representing himself. Id like to see this go to court and watch him wear his purple suit XD
Also would love to see Sony Counter-suit him for wasting their time and money hehe
How is Sony "not subject to First Amendment obligations?" Anything that operates in the U.S. is subject to U.S. laws. Unless he was making threats, all speech is protected speech.
By that logic there shouldn't be anyone banned from here. And what about the digital contract he signed? Why does the first amendment give him the freedom to break the rules of a contract he agreed too?
Man I hope the courts fine him $180,000 for wasting thier time. And then Sony can sue him for taping his conversation with customer support (without authorization) and posting it on youtube for another $180,000.
Sony wouldn't do it, too much bad publication for such a slight chance of receiving the money. [They'd have to win the case, and then the guy would just call Bankruptcy].
Sony wouldn't have to be directly involved. They could just fund the representative's legal fees and "encourage" him to take it to court. Also how would that be bad publicity? I for one would applaud them for it. It would show Sony has some balls. And say being stupid and getting banned for it is justified no matter your excuse or mental infliction.
How is Sony "not subject to First Amendment obligations?" Anything that operates in the U.S. is subject to U.S. laws. Unless he was making threats, all speech is protected speech.
By that logic there shouldn't be anyone banned from here. And what about the digital contract he signed? Why does the first amendment give him the freedom to break the rules of a contract he agreed too?
Man I hope the courts fine him $180,000 for wasting thier time. And then Sony can sue him for taping his conversation with customer support (without authorization) and posting it on youtube for another $180,000.
Sony wouldn't do it, too much bad publication for such a slight chance of receiving the money. [They'd have to win the case, and then the guy would just call Bankruptcy].
Sony wouldn't have to be directly involved. They could just fund the representative's legal fees and "encourage" him to take it to court. Also how would that be bad publicity? I for one would applaud them for it. It would show Sony has some balls. And say being stupid and getting banned for it is justified no matter your excuse or mental infliction.
You see it like that, but some may see it as a Big Corporation bullying The Little Guy (deliberate caps!) with bankrupting lawsuits and whatnot.
And that would almost certainly not be good publicity. I agree with you, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that not everyone would see such a thing the same way you do.
Honestly, this gets to the crux of a very important matter as ridiculous as it sounds.
I have been saying for years that I feel privatly owned communication channels which are increasingly becoming a nessecity in today's world need to be policed better. Not for people misbehaving, or for content, but to protect the freedom of speech rights of people using those forums. I understand the logic of ownership rights and such, and on a small scale I can see favoring the owners. However when dealing with things like the internet with millions of users and the potential for limitless, totally free information, the situation changes entirely. I have long felt that once the purpose of a forum is set, an owner should only be able to engage in censorship/banning/etc... for being off topic, and even then it should be limited. Conversations that extent from on-topic matters to off topic ones should also be protected.
The reason for this is simple: free speech is something that was guaranteed to prevent oppression. The abillity to regulate speech is something that was intented to be put outside of the power of a goverment of duly elected representitives, and despite our self destructive tendencies, something that people would have a hard time simply voting away themselves (a lot of current politics on things like video games largely revolve around the goverment trying to find a way to take away this right).
If it's beyond the power of a duly elected representitive to censor someone, then private citizens shouldn't have the right to do so either. To begin with this wasn't a big deal, especially when dealing with BBS systems and such. But today when you can have a company put up a forum to discuss their product, and then delete anything negative (and ban those complaining about it) to present only positive information that promotes their pdocut under the pretension of free speech... well... that's a problem.
It also gives people with information services virtually godlike power to truely ruin the lives of people who depend on their services.
This guy's case strikes me as a big hokey, but let's say for example that he's serious. He's not being cut off due to lack of payment or anything, but because he said something that someone apparently didn't like. In return his communications link to millions is cut on the say so of some minor bureaucrat who can claim anything he wants and doesn't have to really justify his action. Even if he does have to talk to a supervisor, it's not like the person being banned gets a trial or anything.
Connected to this you see similar issues with blogs, facebook, and other social networking services, where some nerd with a power trip can seriously affect people's lives.
What's more by saying that First Amendment rights and similar things don't apply, it opens all kinds of doors for abuse by those controlling the services. What's more it also allows companies like Google to assist in censorship campaigns in nations like China, to say prevent them from ever seeing news that the goverment doesn't want them to (which is another issue, but connected).
In the end I feel the guy is right, PSN is such a big social network, that I think a private citizen shouldn't have the abillity to censor someone like this. First Amendment protections and such SHOULD apply. If a judge threw it out, it strikes me as being him wanting to avoid an issue that is simply too big, and too relevent for him to want to deal with.
See, I think that as things are now, electronic social networks, of ALL sorts should fall under the same limits that the goverment does as far as controlling information goes. Rather than looking to engage in moral censorship of video games and such, our informational authorities should instead be spending their time protecting our freedom of speech electronically even in face of international conflict. Basically the exact opposite of
what is happening now.
If a company like Sony wants to cut someone off, it should be in a similar vein to a utility company cutting someone off. It can be done, but appeals exist, and there are rules involved (for example you can't cut someone's heat in the middle of winter due to lack of payment and kill them indirectly).
I hate big goverment with a passion, but one thing I am somewhat left wing on (ie favoring the goverment IF it does things right, as opposed to private profiteers) is electronic communication. I think with the right attitude (acting to protect free speech as opposed to limiting it, and mission statements in the appropriate bureaus to this effect) I'd trust officials I had *SOME* say into getting into office to regulate things, rather than some slob of a low-end corperate bureaucrat when it comes to desicians about cutting people out of a million man social network or whatever. Heck, even with message boards (no offense to our mods here) the abillity to delete a message that could be seen by thousands of people potentially should not be something entrusted to some random guy who decided "hey, I wanna make a website". The website he makes effectively being bigger than him as soon as he puts it up (so to speak).
The problem is that the internet has no geographical boundries. There is no universal law on freedom of speech. The FOS laws are different in American, the UK, Germany, China, Iran, I could go on. Who's laws will you enforce?
I don't believe this guy is agoraphobic, I think he's a douche who's attention seeking, I guess daddy never bought him a pony and now he's bitter. He was the kid in class who ate crayons and was constantly seeing the school nurse with objects stuck in his nose.
Honestly, this gets to the crux of a very important matter as ridiculous as it sounds.
I have been saying for years that I feel privatly owned communication channels which are increasingly becoming a nessecity in today's world need to be policed better. Not for people misbehaving, or for content, but to protect the freedom of speech rights of people using those forums. I understand the logic of ownership rights and such, and on a small scale I can see favoring the owners. However when dealing with things like the internet with millions of users and the potential for limitless, totally free information, the situation changes entirely. I have long felt that once the purpose of a forum is set, an owner should only be able to engage in censorship/banning/etc... for being off topic, and even then it should be limited. Conversations that extent from on-topic matters to off topic ones should also be protected.
The reason for this is simple: free speech is something that was guaranteed to prevent oppression. The abillity to regulate speech is something that was intented to be put outside of the power of a goverment of duly elected representitives, and despite our self destructive tendencies, something that people would have a hard time simply voting away themselves (a lot of current politics on things like video games largely revolve around the goverment trying to find a way to take away this right).
If it's beyond the power of a duly elected representitive to censor someone, then private citizens shouldn't have the right to do so either. To begin with this wasn't a big deal, especially when dealing with BBS systems and such. But today when you can have a company put up a forum to discuss their product, and then delete anything negative (and ban those complaining about it) to present only positive information that promotes their pdocut under the pretension of free speech... well... that's a problem.
It also gives people with information services virtually godlike power to truely ruin the lives of people who depend on their services.
This guy's case strikes me as a big hokey, but let's say for example that he's serious. He's not being cut off due to lack of payment or anything, but because he said something that someone apparently didn't like. In return his communications link to millions is cut on the say so of some minor bureaucrat who can claim anything he wants and doesn't have to really justify his action. Even if he does have to talk to a supervisor, it's not like the person being banned gets a trial or anything.
Connected to this you see similar issues with blogs, facebook, and other social networking services, where some nerd with a power trip can seriously affect people's lives.
What's more by saying that First Amendment rights and similar things don't apply, it opens all kinds of doors for abuse by those controlling the services. What's more it also allows companies like Google to assist in censorship campaigns in nations like China, to say prevent them from ever seeing news that the goverment doesn't want them to (which is another issue, but connected).
In the end I feel the guy is right, PSN is such a big social network, that I think a private citizen shouldn't have the abillity to censor someone like this. First Amendment protections and such SHOULD apply. If a judge threw it out, it strikes me as being him wanting to avoid an issue that is simply too big, and too relevent for him to want to deal with.
See, I think that as things are now, electronic social networks, of ALL sorts should fall under the same limits that the goverment does as far as controlling information goes. Rather than looking to engage in moral censorship of video games and such, our informational authorities should instead be spending their time protecting our freedom of speech electronically even in face of international conflict. Basically the exact opposite of
what is happening now.
If a company like Sony wants to cut someone off, it should be in a similar vein to a utility company cutting someone off. It can be done, but appeals exist, and there are rules involved (for example you can't cut someone's heat in the middle of winter due to lack of payment and kill them indirectly).
I hate big goverment with a passion, but one thing I am somewhat left wing on (ie favoring the goverment IF it does things right, as opposed to private profiteers) is electronic communication. I think with the right attitude (acting to protect free speech as opposed to limiting it, and mission statements in the appropriate bureaus to this effect) I'd trust officials I had *SOME* say into getting into office to regulate things, rather than some slob of a low-end corperate bureaucrat when it comes to desicians about cutting people out of a million man social network or whatever. Heck, even with message boards (no offense to our mods here) the abillity to delete a message that could be seen by thousands of people potentially should not be something entrusted to some random guy who decided "hey, I wanna make a website". The website he makes effectively being bigger than him as soon as he puts it up (so to speak).
You raise several points, and whilst I understand your position, I disagree on several of those points. Firstly...
bjj hero said:
The problem is that the internet has no geographical boundries. There is no universal law on freedom of speech. The FOS laws are different in American, the UK, Germany, China, Iran, I could go on. Who's laws will you enforce?
I don't believe this guy is agoraphobic, I think he's a douche who's attention seeking, I guess daddy never bought him a pony and now he's bitter. He was the kid in class who ate crayons and was constantly seeing the school nurse with objects stuck in his nose.
Anywho, point 2 - "No private citizen should have the power to censor another"; Ok, but lets look at a simpler scenario - lets say you invite, oh, 100 friends around to your home for a party (ok, unlikely, but run with it). Lets say everyone is having fun and all, until one guy suddenly stands up and shouts something like "I FUCKING HATE NON-WHITES". Now, according to you, the home owner does not have the right to remove this individual from his home because that would be 'censoring' him, no?
I would argue that, aside from the fact that you have to sign a EULA agreeing to the rules of forums, social networking sites, and networks like xbox live, that when you are using a privately owned communications setup, the owner of that communication setup (i.e. the home owner) has the right to remove individuals from that network who break the rules.
I also have to disagree with the point that this ability will "kill free speech". If a service provider is too harash with the banhammer, the forum goers/gamers will be increasely likely to leave, until the hardcore, inward looking cliche is all that is left.
By the same token, any individual is free to setup their own blog/forum/website to express there ideas and 'speech'. The internet has many providers who don't question the content of these setups, so long as they aren't illegal (i.e. child porn, talking about child porn, talking about how to murder people, etc, etc).
You wouldn't force, say, Fox news or ABC to provide freedom of speech to everyone who wants to be on the news, would you? And you wouldn't shout 'censorship!' when these organizations decide something isn't news worth, or someone's opinion isn't worth the air time.
As for the idea that a product owners forum "pretends to have free speech", I'd have to say that its up to private individuals to determine if a source of expression is really free or not. For example, I would say Fox news is completely unfree, but there are people who believe everything they hear on fox and would call me "Leftist Scum" or "communist" if I said they should have to give a balanced view.
Well actually I think the existance of Fox News proves freedom of speech to an extent. It is also VERY left wing, it oftentimes comes to the same conclusions of other News Networks (excepting people like Bill O' Reilly usually) it just gives more air-time to alternative non-left viewpoints that are expressed a lot more strongly than other news services will allow.
We have yet to see a true, right-wing news channel. What's more I'd go so far as to say that a lot of what the left wing believes might be "nice" but it's not as correct or well informed as people would like to think. This is however getting well off topic.
As far as the Internet having no geographical boundaries, we're dealing with what amounts to a basic human right. The kind of thing the US is supposed to force/enforce globally despite the will of despots, so of course the laws in place would be ours. As for how things would be enforced, it would involve being a lot more aggressive internationally, as well as being a lot more aggressive with our trade/access to our markts, and not being shy on the trigger to reduce a city to ashes for economic reasons.
"OMG Therumancer, that's Crazy" I know what your thinking. But then again consider my attitudes towards globalization (from other messages), the spread of American principles, and other assorted things. Mostly people don't like what I say because I'm fairly callous about simply getting rid of large groups of people, others because it involves doing something (it simply takes more effort to stop someone or control a behavior than to just let it go). I tend to think back to Robert Heinlan however and how a man can either choose to be Free OR to be Safe. Right now we're relatively safe, but we are losing freedom which is more important.
-
As far as the example about private property, consider 100 dudes showing up on your property are limited in their communucation. They can't influance anyone except the other 99 dudes present, so your right as a property owner is fairly reasonable. On the other hand, even a relatively humble Internet site can in theory reach the masses (millions or even billions of people) which of course puts it on another scale entirely. Yes, this is a form of "morality by the numbers" but I do believe the numbers of people involved DO matter in cases like this. What's "right" changes with the number of people affected.
Now the exception here would be within totally sealed systems/sites. For example if your running a forum that is ONLY accessible to people by invite, and can only BE viewed by those people as opposed to publically... well then feel free to be a tin plated dictator. However as soon as a forum even becomes viewable to the masses... well your rights as a site owner should be reduced accordingly as it rapidly becomes an issue far bigger than you.
How is Sony "not subject to First Amendment obligations?" Anything that operates in the U.S. is subject to U.S. laws. Unless he was making threats, all speech is protected speech.
By that logic there shouldn't be anyone banned from here. And what about the digital contract he signed? Why does the first amendment give him the freedom to break the rules of a contract he agreed too?
Man I hope the courts fine him $180,000 for wasting thier time. And then Sony can sue him for taping his conversation with customer support (without authorization) and posting it on youtube for another $180,000.
Sony wouldn't do it, too much bad publication for such a slight chance of receiving the money. [They'd have to win the case, and then the guy would just call Bankruptcy].
Sony wouldn't have to be directly involved. They could just fund the representative's legal fees and "encourage" him to take it to court. Also how would that be bad publicity? I for one would applaud them for it. It would show Sony has some balls. And say being stupid and getting banned for it is justified no matter your excuse or mental infliction.
You see it like that, but some may see it as a Big Corporation bullying The Little Guy (deliberate caps!) with bankrupting lawsuits and whatnot.
And that would almost certainly not be good publicity. I agree with you, don't get me wrong, I'm just saying that not everyone would see such a thing the same way you do.
I think you give people too little credit. There is the whole flipside of it where the little guy is trying to take advantage of the big corporation. We all know he expected this to be settled out of court because of the publicity. The whole deal so far has not been good for Sony's public image to begin with. Just look at the headline. Agrophobic gamer banned. Oh so Sony is going after the mentally challenged now. Just like the whole MS bans lesbian. There is a kneejerk reaction when the bottom line is the little guy is in the wrong. They agreed to a contract, broke it then cry when they face the consequences. There has got to be a point when we all say this is not acceptable.
That'd all be well and good, and quite possible, if the Internet was American and only American. But Sony is an (originally) Japanese company as far as I know, and the Internet is a lovely, global...system? device? clusterfuck? Whatever you want to call it, the internet is not bound and restricted - and should never be bound or restricted - by American laws. I don't want your Constitutional rights, whatever they are. They're yours. "First Amendment Rights" do not apply to me and they never have. I may have similar rights, I'm sure I probably do, but the point is that US laws are not Internet Laws. America already has a reputation as the lauded and oft-laughed at World Police, do you really want to take that branding further by pushing it into the Internet?
Therumancer said:
Simply put I think the judge was wrong though, he dismissed it not because of any of the reasons mentioned by my other responder, or any other details. He dismissed it because he felt First Amendment Rights shouldn't apply. I disagree with that whole heartedly, the Judge's reasoning is inherantly flawed. Whether the guy wins or not, the case deserves to be heard and treated as a potential free speech violation. Should he lose under thos terms with the details reviewed by someone other than a corperate bureaucrat... then I'll agree it should be dropped.
Let me be honest, we ARE the World Police it's just that we have been losing the will to do the job because it's a lot of work, and doing the job correctly involves going into some uncomfortable territory. Like any cops, people LOVE us when they need us and we're acting for their benefit, but when we're enforcing the law/smacking down someone (which is more common) we're hated.... When something goes wrong it's "heeelp America, save us!", when we're focusing our steely gaze of human rights and justice on them it's "Who the heck elected you to do this?".
Things like Freedom of Speech is one of the things we should be enforcing, however given that it's a big issue and involves you know... having to actually do something, which is increasingly anathema to Americans since someone is ALWAYS going to yell (and quite loudly with our Free Speech) no matter what we do.
In general EULAs should be no more binding than medical waivers when something 'goes wrong'. What's more they should be entirely optional when using software and such that you've bought. Especially if the agreement is not posted ON THE PACKAGE before you open the software/hardware/whatever. By this I mean in detail, not a little blurb implying there might be one.
As far as how we enforce it, well one can always deny access to companies like Sony to our marketplace. We can also keep them geographically isolated (an embargo). Meaning that if they choose to send out ships/planes to other alternative markets to see their product, we shoot them down (typically we don't actually wind up doing this since people don't push it). If things get really bad we just shrug and fire a couple of cruise missles into a corperate HQs or a national capitol to make it clear we mean business.
The US doesn't generally act quite like this, but that's how we SHOULD be acting when it comes to free speech. Even if it means war with nations like China (which is inevitable anyway as I've explained before).
I'm speaking in general of course, but when it comes to Japan in paticular this is more or less a "WTF" moment. Whether we promote it heavily or not, Japan is basically under US occupation. This is done for a number of reasons, for one they were (and arguably still are to a great extent) a group of evil twits. Real evil of the type people forget a few decades after the fact. Secondly their islands are one of our major naval/military pipelines into the Far East. If we ever need to go to war with China or whatever, guess where one of our major rallying/logistical points is? Japan's occupation is one of our major global, tactical assets. Then finally, no matter how evil, xenocidal, and racist they happen to be, we prefer to avoid Genocide. The surrounding region is relatively civilized with Japan because we have them under occupation, irregardless of how we explain our prescence diplomatically. Nations like China, Korea, and others would love to wipe The Japanese out to a man for incidents that date well before WW II (though their actions during WW II were the most excessive). Japan is no longer a global force, their SSDF is a joke, if we pulled out of Japan their days would be numbered.... we're their bodyguard as well as the occupying force.
Under the circumstances a Japanese corperation dictating terms of free speech (even if you don't go globally) is an absolute joke.
Let me put it bluntly, for all intents and purposes Japan probably has more in common with Samoa and Pureto Rico than a truely independant nation.
There is neither the will nor the way to export US morality. Never mind your first amendment rights. Hence Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of countries, there is hate crime legislation in the UK and China really cracks down on freedom of speech, I could go on. You cannot fight everyone. Even with the nuclear option (Which isn't really an option) plenty of other countries are armed with nuclear weapons. It would not end well for anyone involved.
Start by addressing the rights of women and the democracy in Afghanistan before worrying about who gets banned from PSN/XBL.
EDIT:
Japan is basically under US occupation. This is done for a number of reasons, for one they were (and arguably still are to a great extent) a group of evil twits
Theru, that is straight racist to say an entire nation are evil twits. Not cool. How many Japanese people do you know? (posts on the net doesn't count. Im talking visited their home etc.)
What's more by saying that First Amendment rights and similar things don't apply, it opens all kinds of doors for abuse by those controlling the services. What's more it also allows companies like Google to assist in censorship campaigns in nations like China, to say prevent them from ever seeing news that the goverment doesn't want them to (which is another issue, but connected).
In the end I feel the guy is right, PSN is such a big social network, that I think a private citizen shouldn't have the abillity to censor someone like this. First Amendment protections and such SHOULD apply. If a judge threw it out, it strikes me as being him wanting to avoid an issue that is simply too big, and too relevent for him to want to deal with.
actually there's TONS of precedent that already state that companies are not subject to this and they are allowed to censor anything they want. there is also precedent that private areas are not limited by free speech either
In general EULAs should be no more binding than medical waivers when something 'goes wrong'. What's more they should be entirely optional when using software and such that you've bought. Especially if the agreement is not posted ON THE PACKAGE before you open the software/hardware/whatever. By this I mean in detail, not a little blurb implying there might be one.
As far as further disclosure of the EULAs goes, I agree. No argument from me there. Have you seen the length of some of them though? I have no idea how they'd put that onto the packaging whatsoever. They're absolutely enormous some of them. Take, for example, WoW's EULA [http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/eula.html], can you imagine trying to cram that onto a single box in such a way that it was both legible and still left room to advertise their product?
I don't disagree that we should have more access to know what we're signing up for before we purchase something. I'm all for Customer Rights, but currently I'm not sure how they'd do it.
Therumancer said:
As far as how we enforce it, well one can always deny access to companies like Sony to our marketplace. We can also keep them geographically isolated (an embargo). Meaning that if they choose to send out ships/planes to other alternative markets to see their product, we shoot them down (typically we don't actually wind up doing this since people don't push it). If things get really bad we just shrug and fire a couple of cruise missles into a corperate HQs or a national capitol to make it clear we mean business.
You seriously want to cockblock Sony, one of the largest players in the electronics industry to the extent of shooting down planes and even to go so far as to assault civilians?
Good sir you are stepping dangerously close to the line where I get convinced you're simply trolling. From your previous posts you're either a committed one or off your rocker, but firing missiles against a civilian target like a corporate HQ is a one-way ticket to a diplomatic clusterfuck the like America hasn't seen since they signed the Declaration of Independence.
Therumancer said:
The US doesn't generally act quite like this, but that's how we SHOULD be acting when it comes to free speech. Even if it means war with nations like China (which is inevitable anyway as I've explained before).
Good luck with that. Not going to go into it now but I'm pretty sure a war with China would castrate your already writhing-in-pain economy.
Therumancer said:
Japan is no longer a global force, their SSDF is a joke, if we pulled out of Japan their days would be numbered.... we're their bodyguard as well as the occupying force.
Japnese military, a joke? This source [http://www.globalfirepower.com/] and this source [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures] beg to differ. When they're that high on those lists they're clearly doing something right.
Therumancer said:
Under the circumstances a Japanese corperation dictating terms of free speech (even if you don't go globally) is an absolute joke.
Since his PSN ban he's been playing a lot of GamePolitics [http://www.worldscollide.com/] that he's "a bit obsessed" with the character of The Joker. "I plan to wear a purple suit during my court trials," he said. "No joke!"
And he just lost any sympathy he was thinking about getting from the new judge. This guy needs to learn something, you sign your first amendment rights away with the fucking EULA.
Edit:I just thought of this, if he is truly agoraphobic how does he plan to go to court for that trial in the first place, or will his defense be seen via streaming video?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
